Quote Originally Posted by FluroChoco
Which comes back to my argument against the first past the post election system. With a preferential vote system such as Australia has Bush could be the president, but if he didn't control the house of reps and the senate (part of the british and our political system) then he couldn't have gone to war as easily, and it is quite possible for the leader (president or prime minister) to not control both houses. Has only recently happend in Australia where Howard controls both. Is pretty scary for me, he can do whatever he wants, he can rewrite the constitution if it pleases him. Of course this wont happen because of public outcry and the other parties still hold some sway.

Anyway, with a preferential voting system America would give a fair voice to the minorities, people could have voted against Kerry without giving Bush control.
Erm, I dunno about Aus, but here in Britain it is an impossibility for the Prime Minister not to have a majority in the House of Commons. The House of Lords is another matter - I disagree with them in principle, but they've done a lot of good things for us - but the way our system works is that the PM is whoever wins the most seats in the Commons.

Anyway, another reason I have heard that many voted for Bush was because they were sick and tired of the rest of the world trying to tell them who to vote for.